The investigation and report of this accident is an example of the worst form of blame.
'Preponderance' assigns some quality to a supposition - opinion, or by assigning a HF category an error is an explanation - place in box xx and file under crew error.
The 'opinion' that the pilot did not follow the approach lights is with hindsight; landing short implies being low, but not necessarily constantly low, nor any reasoning for this
The PAPI / approach path diagram is misleading; deviation from PAPI should be shown as angular paths. A constant low approach should have indicated W/R and then R/R; there is no justifiable explanation as to what the pilot saw.
The PAPI appears not to be harmonized with the ILS; 2.5 deg vs 2.82 deg, and the implied 'aim point' just after the threshold suggest that a duck under manoeuvre is recommended from both ILS and PAPI.
The understanding and application of HF is awful.
Two's in
